About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
. the justices will also review a provision of the federal "defense of marriage act" or doma that deprives legally married gay couples of federal benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. same-sex marriage is legal or will be soon in nine states and the district of columbia. but 31 states have amended their constitutions to bar gay unions. here with us to explain today's development, and where it could lead, is marcia coyle of "the national law journal." welcome back, marcia. >> thanks, marg wet. >> warner: so is it fair to say first of all that the court's decision to hear these first two cases in itself a momentous decision? >> absolutely. a number of gay rights organizations, particularly as if relates to the federal defense of marriage act have been working towards that point. and yes, whatever the court says, if it reaches the merits of these cases will be extremely important. >> warner: let's take them one by one, prop 8 in california first. remind us briefly of how what started out as a state issue ended am in the supreme court. >> the california supreme court a number of
% of the city's economy is tied to defense spending. and in response to sea level rise, the navy has been replacing 14 piers at a cost of $35 million to $40 million apiece. >> sea level here is coming up for lots of reasons. there is no reason for it to go down. it just keeps coming up. >> reporter: larry atkinson heads the climate change and sea level rise institute at old dominion university. >> there is anecdotal evidence and there is real evidence that we have from the tide gauges we have. we can measure this. the science is simple. >> reporter: atkinson is part of a team of scientists the state of virginia has hired to study flooding. an early draft of the bill in the state assembly that funded the study drew criticism from some conservatives. the virginia tea party described the study on its website as: "more wasted tax dollars for more ridiculous studies designed to separate us from our money and control all land and water use." the final bill avoided the phrases sea level rise and climate change and won overwhelming bipartisan support this year. >> some people have tried to spin i
to the conflict in syria. the country's neighbor, turkey, received long-sought-after defense help from nato today. the military coalition also expressed growing concerns about the assad regime's chemical weapons supply. in an all too familiar scenes of civil war, rockets blasted and fires flared overseer i can't today. far from the fighting in brussels, nato members approved turkey's request for patriot antimissile systems. they will defend against syrian shelling and rocket fire that land on the turkish side. the issue has taken on greater urgency. amid u.s. warnings that syria could be preparing to use chemical weapons against the rebels. >> the syrian stock piles of chemical weapons are a matter of great concerns. we know that syria possesses... we know they have the chemical weapons. it is a matter of urgency to ensure effective defense and protection of our ally turkey. >> woodruff: nato chief also warned of even stronger action if the syrian government crosses the chemical line. echoing monday's statements by president obama. >> if anybody resorts to these terrible weapons, i would expect a
on same-sex marriage and the federal defense of marriage act. paul, we'll begin with you. what can we infer from this? what's the time frame? can we expect any sweeping judgments? >> well, a timeframe is the arguments are going to happen in march then we expect a decision by the end of the court session which is june 27th. it will probably go right to the very end. as for how sweeping and how big of a decision we can expect, that's sort of the $64,000 question that court watchers were already speculating about today. are we going to get a narrow ruling one way or another on either one of these two cases or is it going to be one of those once in a generation social civil rights type cases like roe v. wade or brown v.s. board of education? and i think nobody knows. >> how much attention do you think they give to that, to public opinion? where the public stands on an issue? and growing sentiment? >> it's a great question. i mean, if you look at the evolving public opinion on this, there were polls in 2004 that were taken by gallup and "washington post" and other people that showed about
, but mr. panetta, secretary of defense, actually is in the act saying there would be retaliation, do you believe that? and what would be the consequences of that? >> i think everybody believes that. and i think the deputy foreign minister believes it, too. which is why the key phrase there was we wouldn't commit suicide. he knows that if they use these weapons, that there would be a massive retaliation on the part of the united states. and i don't think we should undermine his credibility just because he said "if." take israel for instance, doesn't admit it has nuclear weapons. that's accepted. >> you think rather than us, nato would be interested in getting involved? >> i think pat is right that if they use those weapons, they would be completely isolated. and it would be a coalition of everyone across the globe. >> nato forces, you got the turks there and the americans. the americans have the air power. and the israelis in the neighborhood have it, but they don't want to get involved or shouldn't get involved. but only the americans could do that, and frankly, i don't think we could bl
and me nothing on our savings and checking accounts they say in their own defense, we're dealing with unprecedented regulation. we have to curb proprietary trading. we have regulators breathing down our neck and it's hard to earn an extra buck in that environment. you're seeing citi, in fact, address those concerns in the layoff announcement today. >> ifill: what does that tell bus the health of the banking sector and whether other big banking institution might be following suit? >> citigroup is not as mump an indicator species as i think people would want it to be. 15 years ago, it was the financial supermarket. it rolled everything together. it's one-stop shopping, and that mold has been called into question, not least by the architect of this model, sandy wiel, saying we should break up the big banks. gwen, i think it tells us more about the end of the era of kind of this force conglomeration of bank where's bigger is naturally better. you have seen, obviously, too big to fail banks become too bigger to fail, such as j.p.morgan, or wells fargo which bought wachovia. but there
in the world market? >> bill, do you know where i heard that exact same explanation, defense? i heard it when wall street wanted deregulation. "we have to be competitive in the entire global economy. let's deregulate wall street so we can compete internationally." i don't believe that for a second. look, the issue is we live in a country where millions of people really have not had the opportunity to learn about the dynamics of what goes on in american society. major, major issues literally, get very, very little discussion. so the bottom line for the fcc has got to be, "how do we create a situation in which the american people are hearing a diverse range of ideas so that our public world has the kind of debate that it needs?" >> but what about the argument that people make that the internet, the thriving of the internet, let a billion opinions bloom diminishes the tyranny of monopoly? >> let me respond to that in two ways. "a," the internet is enormously important. it is growing. but the bottom line is that most people today still get their information from television and from radio. >> 74%,
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)